Austin: -Better tag for sectarian violence – blames the victim/stability and sectarian fears are productive of US occupation -Connect crisis representations with fears of sectarian violence – this is the reason we see ourselves as a necessary presence -We need a better description of voting affirmative than “starts a discussion” -- saying justifications are important is good but we need evidentiary/tag support for this explanation -Careful with references to “Iraq should do what Iraq wants to do” – single actor hurts our kritik of IR -Explanation rather than a new card on case to answer their representations turns. -Should be able to explain dropped politics arguments without prompting – how are you flowing the 1AR -Need to answer the impact calculus on politics – even with significant problems for the neg there, answer turns the case. -More diversity on PMCs. – you had significant time left. -Slightly more time on T. -DU?
Ben: -Wrong T counter-interpretation – not all troops used for deterrent purposes. I think we want a broad troops/bases interpretation. Better phrasing on limits out non-Iraq and Afghanistan affs. -Case evidence on postcolonial politics probably irrelevant – that’s 20 seconds for explanation that missing on K of diasds arguments. -Fewer politics theory arguments. You’re hurting you chances on instrinsicness by also reading vote no, bottom of the docket etc. It’s also using up valuable time that we need to explain the K of disads material. Where is the political process K? -Specific link arguments for K of DA – ie “Kashmir most dangerous place in the world” for security K – should cut a card for this impact/read an Afghanistan instability representations argument. Think about this as you would the security K against the COIN bad affirmative. -Read a card for challenging colonialism k to solve environment – prerequisite. -We need to work on the variety of 2AC arguments against both PMCs and re-deployment. Limitations on PMC hiring mean that wouldn’t be used to replace…/larger end of US mission means PMC use wouldn’t make sense or would be limited to State dept. personnel. -Aff avoids either purely representational or material K
Maria: -Frontload argument rather than evidence in question – wait for them to cite evidence and know why they are wrong -You’re elongating final syllable in each sentence. -Reading additional cards on case was useful, but too broad – realism etc not useful if you’re not going for the CP. Tag realism differently. -“in a world” -Argument refenerence - instrinsicness required three/four repetitive sentences. -Block division – how much did you plan on getting through? -Obama focus on jobs needs to be answered differently – must prove that energy bill is a top priority. Yes, it might be spun as a jobs bill, but that doesn’t prove that it is the administration’s top priority. -Story on politics link – we want to talk up the difference between withdrawal on a timeline/responsive to conditions on the ground versus immediate withdrawal. -Efficiency in 2NR overview – “coming out of the 2AC , these are the resaons…” -Impact comparison versus the case – good (though lengthy) explanation of your impact, but not much comparison used to win the debate. -Point out winners win is new. -You can explain focus on representations better if you focus on the nebulous and extensive spillover claims as proof that the 1AC indicates that change in language is sufficient for material change.
Noel: -Slow down on T -I would get rid of this T violation in favor of more coverage on case. -More breathes to avoid clarity problems/double-breathing occasionally -Your clarity suffered towards the end of your speech – you should do some endurance practice drills (speak for 15+minutes) -Better PMC impact evidence/change explanation in c/x – rather than linear increase in capitalism we want to explain the 1AC is perfectly compatible with new foreign policy strategies that support a less direct/publicly accountable form of colonialism. -Careful with redployment impact. -Elongating final syllable. -Using elongated “and” for transition
-Better tag for sectarian violence – blames the victim/stability and sectarian fears are productive of US occupation
-Connect crisis representations with fears of sectarian violence – this is the reason we see ourselves as a necessary presence
-We need a better description of voting affirmative than “starts a discussion” -- saying justifications are important is good but we need evidentiary/tag support for this explanation
-Careful with references to “Iraq should do what Iraq wants to do” – single actor hurts our kritik of IR
-Explanation rather than a new card on case to answer their representations turns.
-Should be able to explain dropped politics arguments without prompting – how are you flowing the 1AR
-Need to answer the impact calculus on politics – even with significant problems for the neg there, answer turns the case.
-More diversity on PMCs. – you had significant time left.
-Slightly more time on T.
-DU?
Ben:
-Wrong T counter-interpretation – not all troops used for deterrent purposes. I think we want a broad troops/bases interpretation. Better phrasing on limits out non-Iraq and Afghanistan affs.
-Case evidence on postcolonial politics probably irrelevant – that’s 20 seconds for explanation that missing on K of diasds arguments.
-Fewer politics theory arguments. You’re hurting you chances on instrinsicness by also reading vote no, bottom of the docket etc. It’s also using up valuable time that we need to explain the K of disads material. Where is the political process K?
-Specific link arguments for K of DA – ie “Kashmir most dangerous place in the world” for security K – should cut a card for this impact/read an Afghanistan instability representations argument. Think about this as you would the security K against the COIN bad affirmative.
-Read a card for challenging colonialism k to solve environment – prerequisite.
-We need to work on the variety of 2AC arguments against both PMCs and re-deployment. Limitations on PMC hiring mean that wouldn’t be used to replace…/larger end of US mission means PMC use wouldn’t make sense or would be limited to State dept. personnel.
-Aff avoids either purely representational or material K
Maria:
-Frontload argument rather than evidence in question – wait for them to cite evidence and know why they are wrong
-You’re elongating final syllable in each sentence.
-Reading additional cards on case was useful, but too broad – realism etc not useful if you’re not going for the CP. Tag realism differently.
-“in a world”
-Argument refenerence - instrinsicness required three/four repetitive sentences.
-Block division – how much did you plan on getting through?
-Obama focus on jobs needs to be answered differently – must prove that energy bill is a top priority. Yes, it might be spun as a jobs bill, but that doesn’t prove that it is the administration’s top priority.
-Story on politics link – we want to talk up the difference between withdrawal on a timeline/responsive to conditions on the ground versus immediate withdrawal.
-Efficiency in 2NR overview – “coming out of the 2AC , these are the resaons…”
-Impact comparison versus the case – good (though lengthy) explanation of your impact, but not much comparison used to win the debate.
-Point out winners win is new.
-You can explain focus on representations better if you focus on the nebulous and extensive spillover claims as proof that the 1AC indicates that change in language is sufficient for material change.
Noel:
-Slow down on T
-I would get rid of this T violation in favor of more coverage on case.
-More breathes to avoid clarity problems/double-breathing occasionally
-Your clarity suffered towards the end of your speech – you should do some endurance practice drills (speak for 15+minutes)
-Better PMC impact evidence/change explanation in c/x – rather than linear increase in capitalism we want to explain the 1AC is perfectly compatible with new foreign policy strategies that support a less direct/publicly accountable form of colonialism.
-Careful with redployment impact.
-Elongating final syllable.
-Using elongated “and” for transition